1
INTRODUCTION
Honesty is the component of moral character that develops good attributes
including truthfulness, kindness, discipline, integrity, etc. which involves the absence of
lying, cheating, and theft or any other bad things which could hurt other people (Archana,
2016). It is among many traits of people that can be easily shown and done it also
develops self-discipline that is one of the most important and useful skills everyone
should possess as this skill is essential in every area of life (Sasson, 2001). Without
honesty and self-discipline; promises are broken, contracts go unenforced, taxes remain
unpaid, and governments become corrupt. Nowadays, finding honest people in the
society where it’s easy to tell lies, cheat and people care more about money is a bit
difficult.
As pointed out by Connor (2016) in his article Honesty-How it benefits you and
others, honesty is not just about telling the truth but also being true to yourself and others
about what kind of people you are that promotes openness. Honest intentions will gain
respect. To some extent, the deciding whether to behave and act honestly is a result of a
conscious analysis in which one contrasts the potential benefit that may result from
behaving dishonestly with the likelihood of getting caught, multiplied by the magnitude
of subsequent punishment (Becker, 1968). However, honest decisions may also depend
on less conscious desires, such as serving self-interest versus behaving ethically, while
self-discipline gives a person the power to stick with the decisions and follow them
through, without changing of mind, and is therefore, one of the important requirements
for achieving goals (Sasson, 2001).
2
Indeed, people seem to balance their competing desires, profiting from cheating
while maintaining a positive self-view as an honest individual (Mazar, Amir, & Ariely,
2008). Accordingly, people lie to the extent that they can justify their lies (Schweitzer &
Hsee, 2002; Shalvi, Dana, Handgraaf, & De Dreu, 2011). Recently, money is a big issue
regarding to how honest people will be if he/ she is bribe with a large amount of money,
how discipline he/she is in budgeting the money and how their honesty and discipline is
being challenge at times like these. Money is a representation of economic value and
social power that raises a suspicions and assumption that the essence of money is a
physical thing that has been corrupted by evil minds that leads many people to do
something that shouldn’t be done in the first place such as lying for the sake of money
(Jacobs, 2012). Lying is tremendous in society and the fact that people lie in order to
benefit is not surprising anymore as the form of deception is “good enough” (Capraco,
2016).
Central Luzon State University is located at Science City of Munoz, Nueva Ecija.
Central Luzon State University is composed of 8 Colleges and each school year has 2
(two) semester and each semester there are 3(three) term exams and each term held on
the first 1 ½ (one and one half) month of class. In this situation, many students engage in
cheating in order to pass the exam and see themselves as principled people by
rationalizing cheating for reasons that seems legitimate for them (Rettinger, 2019).
Projects, research and other requirements is also part of student responsibility and
obligation in school in order to develop their skills and take it as an opportunity to
challenge themselves (Little, 2018) and sometimes, students use it as an advantage to get
extra money to their parents as pointed out by Meeker (2018), it is a will of a child to
3
gain an advantage or get attention. In contrast, if the students will be responsible enough
with the help of parents and teachers if they have self-discipline (Humphreys, 1998). As a
matter of fact, discipline is considered as the most serious problem with school in the past
year up until now based on a poll according to the Phi Delta Kappa/ Gallup poll public
opinion survey (Rose and Gallup, 2005).
Hence, the purpose of this study is to analyze the status of honesty and selfdiscipline among the students of Central Luzon State University. Analyzing the status of
honesty as well as self-discipline among people may help to motivate and encourage
other people to be honest and disciplined at all times as lying and not able to refrain
themselves form doing unnecessary things wouldn’t only damage the persons reputation
but also reduce the tendency to be trusted by other people (Lickerman, 2014).
Research Problem
This study will look out on to the moral character such as honesty and selfdiscipline of the students in different Colleges at Central Luzon State University.
Specifically, it aims to:
1. Describe the Socio-demographic Characteristics of the respondents in terms of
age, sex, course, work of father, work of mother, educational attainment of father,
educational attainment of mother and income.
2. Describe the level of moral character in terms of:
a. Honesty
b. self-discipline
4
3. Determine the significant relationship between socio-demographic characteristics
and honesty of the respondents.
4. Determine the significant relationship between socio-demographic characteristics
and self-discipline among the respondents.
5. Determine the significant difference between honesty and self-discipline among
the respondents across the different colleges in CLSU.
Hypothesis
1. There is significant relationship between socio-demographic characteristics and
moral character
2. There is significant difference between honesty and self-discipline among the
respondents.
Significance of the Study
This study provides information about the current status of moral character
specifically honesty and self-discipline of students at Central Luzon State University. It is
expected to be significant to different people like Teachers, Students, Parents,
Community and to the Next Researcher
Teachers. In this study, teachers are expected to build trust and strong
relationship among parents and students. This may also help them to improve and serve
as a motivation to improve and be more trustful as it is their job to be honest, discipline at
all times and tolerate their students in an equal manner.
5
Students. This study is expected to open the mind of the students to be more
honest even in simple and little things and maintain discipline in order to develop trust
with their fellow students. This may also serve as a tool for the students to be more
discipline and trustful with their words and actions.
Parents. It is expected that the parents will be more honest towards their children
and because they serve as the role model that sets a good example for the children to
follow and gives a sense of security and impart good discipline.
Community. This study is expected to be helpful to the overall development of
the community as it helps to promote a balance economic and peaceful environment that
produces a citizen that is likely productive, disciplined and can be trusted in big and
complicated matters.
Scope and Limitation
This study focuses on the moral character such as honesty and self-discipline of
students at Central Luzon State University. Specifically those students who are enrolled
in different colleges such as College of Education (CEd), College of Engineering (CEn),
College of Veterinary Science and Medicine (CVSM), College of Home Science and
Industry (CHSI), College of Business Administration and Accountancy (CBAA), College
of Arts and Sciences (CAS), College of Agriculture (CAg) and College of Fisheries (CF)
in any year level.
6
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
In this chapter, related studies about the socio demographic characteristics such as
age, sex, course, work, educational attainment, income, honesty of a person, the current
status of honesty, self-discipline as well as the current status of self-discipline are
presented in this study.
The Importance of Socio-Demographic
Socio-demographics are the characteristics of an individual such as age, sex,
educational level, income, experience, location etc. that are being asked in all kinds of
surveys (Dobronte, 2013). This allows the researcher to determine if the target
respondents is being reached, the information needed to be gathered is actually seek and
it will help to determine the progress on the samples that is a part of a population. In the
recent paper “On the Origin of dishonesty: from parents to children” by Houser et.al.
(2015), the dishonesty can be trace back to how the children learn from their parents. The
parents cheat a little when their child is present due to the desire to model honesty in
front of the child.
Socio-Demographic Characteristics
Age
Teenagers are more likely to lie according to the research of Buchanan (2015).
Children age 6-8 and old participants age over 60 is considered worst or bad at lying as
the researcher conducted the first test where the participants were asked how frequently
and whom they had lie in the past 24 hours. In the second test, teenagers admit that they
7
lie of at least 2 times in the whole day. Researchers observe that the age-related
difference is due to the inhibitory control where in the teenagers had a lower inhibitory
control. In the age of late childhood to adolescence it is challenging for them to develop
their self-discipline as they have the urge to be not treated like a child anymore
(Pickhardt, 2010) and from that parents give their consent to their child to do what they
want.
Sex
In investigating gender differences with respect to the behavior and
outcomes (Niederle, 2014) some suggest that (but not all) that males are more prone to
doing mistakes and unethical behavior such as dishonesty than of female (Erat and
Gneezy, 2012). In an excellent survey, Rosenbaum et al. (2014) emphasize that despite
honesty is not a fixed trait, most of the studies report that women cheat less than men.
This is shown in the lab (e.g., Erat and Gneezy, 2012; Houser et al., 2012; Conrads et al.,
2014; Kocher et al., 2016)2 and in the field (Azar et al., 2013; Bucciol et al., 2013).
Although, the literature predominately finds that men cheat significantly more, some
studies find no gender differences (e.g., Childs, 2012; Djawadi and Fahr, 2015).
In the self-discipline, the recent research with Asian people as their respondents to
clarify the difference in gender in terms of discipline, the study shows that boys exhibit
great self-discipline or self-control than girls (Wang, 2017).
8
Parents Work
In the kind of work – blue and white collar job, it’s undeniable that there is a
presence of stigma in the blue collar jobs where many people become too judgmental and
thinks that these jobs are just plain dirty although these blue collar jobs are sometimes
dangerous for the employee in terms of workplace unlike white collar jobs. In the white
collar jobs, the working environment is better and linked to the higher paying type of job
(Williams, 2012) but according on the article of Thomas (2016), the child of a blue collar
job tends to be have more honest living.
Some patterns of parental values for children were identified as follows (Gilbert
2008): The middle class parent stresses the value of self-control, curiosity and
consideration as the capacity for right self-direction and empathetic understanding of
their child. Working class parents focus on obedience and good manners as the instilling
behavioral conformity. In the questions asked by the middle-class parents on how would
they discipline their children, their responses is to punish the child if they misbehave or
do bad things, in contrast to the working-class parents the discipline will depend on the
consequences of the behavior of the child which Kohn (1967) hypothesized that this
discipline techniques were develop based on the occupational experiences of the parents
and reasoned out that those who are professionals are more likely to value self-direction
than those blue-collar job parents.
Parents Educational Attainment and Income
Working in a blue collar job which physical strength is more needed but the salary
is small and is not enough, technically according to Lastoe (2010) it is not that something
9
to be dishonest about because the one who works knows that it may cost loss of trust and
credibility. That’s why, Sacit (2000) suggest a budgeting tip to the students whose
parents income is not enough. This tip is to save money and buy only the needed things to
avoid doing unethical things such as stealing, telling lies, and cheating.
Parents may affect the behavior of their children by means of transmission and
environment. More educated and richer parents can provide a better environment for their
children. (McLachlan et.al., 2013). Children brought up in less favorable conditions
obtain less education but much more of attaining good behavior as their parents teaches
them to good and thankful to the things they have now as they will be able to get what
they want when they are determined and exerts much effort to achieve their goal
(Heckman and Masterov,2005). Hence, there is a large connection between educational
attainment of parents, income as well as the honesty and self-discipline of the child
(Salvanes, 2011).
Honesty as a virtue and necessary condition for genuine happiness
This article focuses on one virtue, honesty. “An honest person refuses to pretend
that facts are other than they are, whether to himself or others” (Smith, 2003, p. 518)
emphasize that a person needed guidance from others through truthful information, which
is the honesty of others. Therefore, dishonesty or lying towards others – giving false
information, distorting true information or withholding information (Braginsky, 1970)
which can be held accountable for others inability “to see facts related to the self as they
are” (self-honesty). The word honesty denotes being trustworthy and loyal. Whatever the
interpretation the prime objective behind observing honesty is selflessness and
10
maintaining cordial relations in family and society. Thus, honesty is a great human virtue
that plays vital roles in every aspect of human life.
The path of honesty is hard according to Pandey (2017). One needs to have
patience to reap benefit from it. However, people these days seem to be choosing shortcut methods derived from greed and lust for which they become dishonest. Today unrest,
suffering and miseries of families and society are mainly due to dishonesty. Tempted by
instant results people tend to opt for wrong paths, but the same ultimately becomes a
cause of sufferings. All those who want to be happy and content should make honesty a
principle of life and follow it thoroughly. An honest person is the one who corrects his
/her mistakes. Only an honest person bears the ability for forgiveness. An honest person
can achieve anything he/she desires. An honest member of family and society has much
impact in public and private sphere. Honesty is a discipline that enriches a person with
purity whereas dishonesty is the outcome of polluted minds. So it is always better to
choose purity over pollution and making living worthy. There is no other virtue that can
replace this great human virtue. Honesty teaches a person to respect self and be genuine
to others.
Consequently, without seeing the facts, the person acts, feels and thinks under
false impressions that may lead to wrong doings. If these impressions are false positives
individual well-being might be the consequence. Moreover, dishonesty directly affects
the possessor by means of evoking negative emotions like shame, fear of discovery and
unhappiness (Ten Brinke & Porter, 2012). Thus, honesty contributes to realistic selfevaluation and reflection of possessors and recipients alike, an ability which is crucial for
11
growth and is a premise for modifying unhealthy thoughts and behaviors that are a
stumbling block to genuine happiness.
Honesty is not just about telling the truth. It’s about being real with yourself and
others about who you are, what you want and what you need to live your most authentic
life. Honesty promotes openness, empowers us and enables us to develop consistency in
how we present the facts. Honesty sharpens our perception and allows us to observe
everything around us with clarity (Cannors, 2016).
Honesty in an educational and vocational setting
An honest person refuses to pretend that facts are other than they are even when
facing unpleasant facts, and considering difficult actions that might be demanded and farreaching consequences (Smith, 2003, p. 518). Given these potential impacts, it seems
clear that timely and adequate intervention is important, but why do individuals with
problems demand more from a professionals’ honesty than problem individuals?
(Berglas, 2002) suggests three reasons. First, those who are negatively affected by
malfunctioning individuals demand change as quickly and painlessly as possible. When
dealing with individuals with problems, honest professionals cannot promise relatively
cheap, rapid and shallow solutions such as behavioral training. As a consequence, the
potential client and/or those who pay for interventions might choose a professional who
offers an incorrect but relatively inexpensive, fast and superficial solution. Second,
professionals who honestly address severe problems can expect ostensible cooperation or
severe resistance when the individual is in denial of any personal and/or work-related
12
problems. Finally, individuals with possible deep-rooted problems require self-honest
professionals.
People seek to appear fair and honest not only in the eyes of others but also in
their own eyes (Wertenbroch, 2012). Certain types of actions and magnitudes of
dishonesty, people can categorize their actions into more compatible terms and find
rationalizations for their actions. As a consequence, people can cheat while avoiding any
negative self-signals that might affect their self-concept and thus avoid negatively
updating their self-concept altogether (Gur and Sackeim 1979).
People first act on their initial automatic intuition and only later deliberately
reason about their action. Such deliberation allows people to overcome their automatic
behavioral tendencies. Focusing on tempting situations in which cheating allows serving
one’s self-interest, we suggest that cheating is an automatic tendency and that the need
for justification matters only when people have time to deliberate. That is, people will
refrain from lying when deliberation time is ample and no justifications for lying are
available (Berely-Meyer, 2012). People do things without thinking properly and that
includes dishonesty, they act what they think is right for themselves and at some ways
doing wrong things will satisfy that interest.
Honesty is important for economic development and more generally for how
society functions in almost all relationships, yet, it often is in conflict with individual
self-interest. (Alain Cohn, 2015). People are often torn between two competing
motivations gaining from cheating versus maintaining a positive self-concept as honest
(Aronson 1969; Harris, Mussen, and Rutherford 1976).
13
An alternative stream of literature rooted in social psychology attests to the
inculcation of internalized norms of honesty which create psychological (or intrinsic)
costs of lying, conducing ethical behavior (Abeler, Becker, & Falk, 2014; Somanathan &
Rubin, 2004) When a sufficiently large number of individuals in a given society
internalize such norms, honesty assumes a generalized value of acceptable behavior
(Pruckner and Sausgruber, 2013)
Truth about Honesty
Honesty is important for maintaining a society that recognizes human dignity and
supports the ability of its members to make free and rational choices. Bok (1999) pointed
out that, for dishonesty to be morally justified, a person must first seek the truth about the
action being done. It must clearly provide greater benefit than harm. Even in such rare
instances, however, it should be recognized that dishonesty always creates at least some
harm. This is because it imposes moral costs on the deceivers themselves and damages
the credibility of administrators more broadly when revealed (della Porta & Vannucci,
2012). In contrast, the utilitarian approach associated with philosophers such as Jeremy
Bentham (2001) and J. S. Mill (1993) argue that an action is judged to be acceptable
depending on the consequences of the action, i.e., it is morally right to promote the
greatest good for the greatest number. Thus, from a utilitarian perspective, a lie is
justified if the good that comes from it outweighs the negative consequences. Virtuebased ethics, associated primarily with Aristotle (2004), maintains that specific qualities
of personal character determine what makes for a “good person.” In this tradition, ethical
decision-making consists of acting in accordance with virtues, i.e., dispositions toward
certain attitudes and behaviors that are essential to living a life of excellence.
14
Whichever approach is adopted, however, public administrators may ultimately
need to draw upon their own moral compass to resolve ethical problems (Cooper, 2012).
As Stewart (1984) puts it, “most managers are neither pure deontologists, nor pure
Utilitarians, but rather operate according to a kind of ethical pluralism” (p.20). Along
these lines, Svara (2015) has proposed the “ethics triangle” framework in which
administrators give due consideration to the principles, consequences, and character of
their actions while maintaining a focus on their duties as public officials.
Benefits of Being Honest
Honesty as argue by Barclay (2013) has to be the foundation in order to set
realistic goals. Being honest also has benefits and promotes reflection on own thoughts,
encourage an individual to be courageous and keeps a person out of trouble. (Connors,
2016) pointed out that honesty will take a person into place where they never imagined
and that it is the easiest thing that a person can practice in order to be happy. It is going to
take you places in life that you never could have dreamed and it’s the easiest thing you
can practice in order to be happy, successful and fulfilled. Honesty is part of the
foundation of my core values and principles. Honesty cuts through deception and knifes
its way through deceit and lies. Honesty leads to a fulfilling, free life. (Cannors, 2016)
Dishonesty on the other hand can hurt the feelings of other people and deteriorate
trust of others (Silva, 2017). The opposite of honesty is deception or lying. Lying is
equally bad whether you are deceiving others or yourself. When you lie, you delude
yourself into believing what you’re saying. You start digging a hypothetical ditch, even if
15
with an infant-sized spoon, that will keep getting bigger over time. You confuse yourself,
confuse others, lose credibility and put yourself in harm (Cannors, 2016)
Cheating Behaviors among Students
Academic integrity in students has been recognized as a fundamental objective of
higher education. Traditionally, it has been a highly regarded ideal in colleges and
universities, one which symbolized the essence of learning. Honest endeavor on the part
of students was the expected norm, even though infractions did occur. Although
academic integrity is still an objective in theory, it loses ground to academic dishonesty
in actual practice. Higher education is riot synonymous with academic integrity. The
problem of academic dishonesty is a disturbing trend that is difficult to accept, much less
to understand and explain. (Holleque, 1982)
Academic dishonesty among college students is a perplexing phenomenon. Its
occurrence has been documented and publicized. Although college and university
administrators admit that academic dishonesty is a problem on campus, they often lack
effective policies and procedures to deal with it. In addition, ambivalent perceptions
regarding academic dishonesty avarice this paradoxical situation. (Holleque, 1982)
Commonly called "cheating," academic dishonesty takes many forms Among
them are copying from another's test, stealing examinations, using crib notes, turning in
inauthentic term papers, plagiarizing, sabotaging laboratory experiments, dry-lobbing,
padding bibliographies, theft and stashing of library materials, stealing lecture notes, and
falsifying transcripts and letters of recommendation. Whenever and however it occurs,
academic dishonesty is a problem, not only for faculty and institutions of higher
16
education, but also for students. This study examined one aspect of academic dishonesty,
that of cheating on examinations. (Holleque, 1982)
Self-Discipline
Self-discipline is “the ability to make yourself do things you know you should do even
when you do not want to” (Cambridge Dictionaries Online, 2016), “the ability to control
one’s feelings and overcome one’s weaknesses” (Oxford Dictionaries, 2016). It is
emphasized that “self-discipline appears in various forms, such as perseverance, restraint,
endurance, thinking before acting, finishing what you start doing, and as the ability to carry out
one’s decisions and plans, in spite of inconvenience, hardships or obstacles. Self-discipline also
means a self-control, the ability to avoid unhealthy excess of anything that could lead to negative
consequences” (Sasson, 2016). Low level of individual self-discipline (or self-control as
the form of self-discipline) leads to different problems in social and personal life
(Duckworth & Seligman, 2005). And vice versa, strong confidence and high level of selfdiscipline facilitates success, better achievements and reaching the goals (de Ridder,
Lensvelt-Mulders, Finkenauer, Stok, & Baumeister, 2012) which, in their turn, improve
the mood and makes people happier and gladder (Hofmann, Luhmann, Fisher, Vohs, &
Baumeister, 2013). People with high level of self-discipline much better are able to
control their daily and routine activities, and as a result, usually avoid problems, cope
with the tasks and overcome possible difficulties. Such people always try to find the most
suitable solution to solve a problem, and their resistance desire in unfavorable conditions
remains longer than those without self-control (Hofmann, Baumeister, Förster, & Vohs,
2012).
17
Students’ Self-discipline
Two longitudinal studies are conducted to investigate the impact of self-discipline
of students in school and in home. In the two studies, self-discipline and self-control were
used interchangeably, and were both defined as “the ability to suppress prepotent responses
in the service of a higher goal and further specifying that such a choice is not automatic but
rather requires conscious effort” (Duckworth and Seligman, 2006; p. 199). In order to
suppress innate responses to focus on a desired goal calls for self-discipline, which
students need to exercise throughout their school years.
Self-regulation works closely together with self-discipline in studying. Selfregulation involves engaging oneself in school related activities such as reviewing notes,
going for extra coaching, doing assignments, studying and watching educative programs
instead of going for entertainment (Zimmerman and Ramdass, 2011) to be defined as
“proactive process whereby individuals consistently organize and manage their thoughts,
emotions, behaviors, and environment in order to attain academic goals” (p.198).
It shows that students must learn how to set goals, how to choose the right
learning strategies, and the art of monitoring their performance. Also, results showed the
need for students to learn the habit of thinking about the learning outcomes over a long
period of time for them to become self-regulated.
Self-regulation skills enhance learning. (Eilam, Zeidner, & Aharon, 2009;
Zimmerman & Ramdass, 2011). To regulate oneself and to focus on school work until
academic goals are achieved requires self-discipline. In a study, Zimmerman and
Kitsantas (2014) indicated that students who exercise both self-discipline and self-
18
regulation achieve higher test scores than when either self-discipline or self-regulation is
applied. Hence, in this study self-discipline involves self-regulation. Zimmerman and
Kitsantas (2014) say that self-regulated students are confident, diligent and productive.
They are self-motivated to learn, which propels them to go out of their way to seek
information. Also, self-regulated students know when they do not understand something,
and they seek help. The learners focus their thoughts, feelings, and actions to school work
so that they may achieve their academic success (Bembenutty, 2011; Zimmerman, 1990).
From self-regulation children learn to be caring, purposeful and diligent. The
qualities that make up self-regulation involve such abilities as delaying gratification,
controlling impulses, paying attention and staying on task (Bodrova & Leong, 2006).
These are the same traits that are portrayed by self-disciplined students.
Building student's discipline
In an effort to prepare high school students for a competitive workforce,
administrators and teachers need to use disciplinary methods that teach students socially
responsible behaviors and that foster intrinsic motivation of students. Authors Brigham,
Nicolai and Wilcox (1998) found that in order to promote student achievement and to
better manage student discipline, educators must develop change in student behavior that
increases student self-analysis and self-management. They maintain that creating change
in student behavior from disruptive to self-disciplined is more complex than simply
telling a student to do so. This process involves intrinsic motivation and the development
of self-management skills.
19
Interaction between teachers and disruptive students does not need to be
confrontational in nature, but rather can be productive in teaching students social skills
and in developing intrinsically motivated student behavior (Marshall, 1998).
20
METHODOLOGY
This chapter shows the theoretical framework, conceptual framework, operational
definition of terms, research design, research locale, instrumentation sample and
sampling procedures, data gathering technique and the statistical treatment of data that
were employed in it.
Theoretical Framework
This study is based on the Normative Ethical Theories that represent systematic
attempts to describe and explain moral or ethical phenomena. To be precise, in normative
ethical theories it is possible to isolate a tripartite structure that comprises a moral
standard, general moral principles and particular moral principles and judgments.
Moral principles and judgments use the concepts 'good' and 'right' (and their
opposites) to describe certain actions. To be able to use these concepts requires that moral
theories define what 'good' and 'right' mean. The definitions themselves are a Meta ethical
issue. Nevertheless, the definitions and, in particular, the connection between the
definitions, do have serious normative consequences.
Perhaps the most serious consequence concerns the connection between the
definitions (rather than the particular definitions themselves) and whether the concept
'good' or the concept 'right' is seen to be the more fundamental concept. The realization
here is that is possible to define these concepts in relation to each other, i.e., it is possible
to define what is good as what is right (x is good because x is right) or to define what is
right as what is good (x is right because x is good).
21
An illustration will demonstrate the difference between approaches. Consider the
moral judgments:

Being honest is (or produces some) good because being honest is the right action.

Being honest is the right action because being honest is (or produces some) good.
The difference in focus in these judgments is dramatic. Judgment (1) considers 'right'
to be the more fundamental concept and suggests that whatever is good, is good because
it is right. Judgment (2), in contrast considers good to be the more fundamental concept
and alleges that whatever is right, is right because it is (or produces some) good.
Those
theories that consider 'good' to be the more fundamental concept will also isolate some
particular good as the supreme good, while those theories that consider 'right' to be the
more fundamental concept will designate certain actions as the right actions, i.e., as moral
duties or obligations.
Notice that there is a connection between the whether moral theories consider
'good' or 'right' to be the more fundamental concept and whether the focus in their moral
evaluations is on consequences or intentions. In theories that consider 'good' to be the
more basic concept, the purpose in moral action is to produce as much good as possible.
What these theories will (and must) focus on to determine whether this condition has
been met are consequences. It is the good that one's actions produce then, rather than
one's intentions, that determines a situation's moral status. In these theories one's
intentions have little or no relevance, all that matter are consequences.
22
Conceptual Framework
Taking into account and considering the proposed foundation of the study, the
conceptual paradigm was developed as follows:
Research Paradigm
Socio-demographic
Level of Honesty
Characteristics
a. Sex
b. Age
c. College
d. Income
e. Parents Work
f. Parents
Educational
Attainment
Level of SelfDiscipline
Figure 1. The conceptual paradigm showing the relationship of variables of the study.
23
Operational Definition of Terms
The terms used are defined in operational definition to provide further
understanding on how the terms were used in this study.
Socio-demographic Characteristics are the general information about the
respondents such as their sex, age, college, income, parents work and parent’s
educational attainment they take as students at Central Luzon State University.
`Sex is the identity of the respondents based on their physical aspect and sexual
orientation on their birth which is male and female.
Age is the time of respondents since they were born represented in terms of years.
College is the colleges inside Central Luzon State University such as College of
Education (CEd), College of Engineering (CEn), College of Veterinary Science and
Medicine (CVSM), College of Home Science and Industry (CHSI), College of Business
Administration and Accountancy (CBAA), College of Arts and Sciences (CAS), College
of Agriculture (CAg) and College of Fisheries (CF).
Income is the monthly salary of the parents that they earned from their work.
Parents Work is the activity of the parents that is being done regularly in order to
earn money.
Parents Educational Attainment is the state of parents education that is
accomplish in their respective school years.
24
Level of Honesty is the status of the characteristic specifically honesty of the
respondents that the researcher aims to measure. It is the state of being truthful and not
lying.
Level of Self-Discipline is the status or characteristic which is the discipline of
the respondents towards themselves that the researcher aims to measure. It is the state of
having a control and able to manage oneself.
Moral Character is the term used to describe the honesty and self-discipline of
the respondents.
Research Design
This research used the descriptive design in which a body of data is analyzed and
interpreted by the researchers. This study described the situation or area of interest
factually and accurately in order to arrive at goal that is to analyze the level of honesty
and self-discipline among Central Luzon State University students.
Descriptive research design according to McCombes (2019) aims to describe the
population, situation and phenomenon in an accurate and systematic way. It answers the
what, when, where, who and how questions but not why questions. This kind of research
design can use a wide variety of methods to investigate one or more variables.
The researchers choose the descriptive design as it will be an appropriate choice
as the aim of this research is to identify characteristics, frequencies and correlation.
25
Local of the Study
This study will undertake in different colleges inside Central Luzon State
University such as College of Education (CEd), College of Engineering (CEn), College
of Veterinary Science and Medicine (CVSM), College of Home Science and Industry
(CHSI), College of Business Administration and Accountancy (CBAA), College of Arts
and Sciences (CAS), College of Agriculture (CAg) and College of Fisheries (CF).
The Central Luzon State University (CLSU) started as a farm school, the Central
Luzon Agricultural School (CLAS), through Executive Order No. 10 issued on April 12,
1907 by the then Governor of the Province of Nueva Ecija, James F. Smith, who declared
a public agricultural domain in Muñoz as the site of the agricultural school.
As a farm school, the major activities of CLAS included skills training and
disciplined community life for farm productivity and sound family living. The students
learned the rudiments of better farming methods, agricultural mechanics and
homemaking arts. These activities soon evolved into a model vocational-agricultural
teaching and learning program which became its legacy to the country in so far as the
CLAS experience was concerned. As a result, CLAS became a byword for productive
farming methods.
CLAS was converted into the Central Luzon Agricultural College (CLAC) by
virtue of Executive Order No. 393 issued by then President Elpidio Quirino on December
31, 1950. The existence of CLAC coincided in large part to the early beginning of higher
education in agriculture in the Philippines. It was the first state institution in the country
to offer a four-year curriculum for training teachers of vocational agriculture. One of the
26
unique features of this program was the requirement of practicum, a special instruction
requiring certain hours per week of actual work. The underlying concerns in practicum
were “learning-by- doing”, acquisition of practical skills and expertise; including the
value and dignity of work; and forestalling the “white-collar” mentality. Hence, CLAC
was known as “the mother of vocational agricultural schools” in the country.
CLAC became the Central Luzon State University on June 18, 1964 by virtue of
Republic Act No. 4067. As embodied in its enabling act, the “University shall primarily
give professional and technical training in agriculture and mechanic arts besides
providing advanced instruction and promoting research in literature, philosophy, the
sciences, technology and art”.
Now, for more than 100 years, CLSU stands proud as one of the more renowned
and prestigious higher education institutions in the country. It straddles on a 658 hectarecampus in the Science City of Muñoz, Nueva Ecija, 150 kilometers north of Manila.
Then and now, the university is a shining example of an institution that has dedicated
itself to the task of producing well-trained people and providing services with an
indelible mark of excellence.
27
Vicinity Map
Figure 2: The Map of Nueva Ecija showing the location of the study
28
Respondents
The respondents of this study are 160 students who are enrolled in different
colleges inside Central Luzon State University such as College of Education (CEd),
College of Engineering (CEn), College of Veterinary Science and Medicine (CVSM),
College of Home Science and Industry (CHSI), College of Business Administration and
Accountancy (CBAA), College of Arts and Sciences (CAS), College of Agriculture
(CAg) and College of Fisheries (CF) in any year level.
Sampling and sampling procedure
This research used random sampling procedure where in every member of the
population has an equal chance of being selected in order to gather data about the
population to make an inference that can be generalized to the population.
Table 1
Distribution of Respondents
N=160
Total
Respondents
F
%
CEd
CEn
CVSM
CHSI
CBAA
CAS
CAg
CF
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
160
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
100.0
29
Instrumentation
The instrument used in this study was the questionnaire. The questionnaire has 3
parts.
Part 1 is the gathered information on the socio-demographic characteristics of the
students studying at Central Luzon State University. The socio-demographic
characteristics included their sex, age, college, income of their parents, parents work and
their parents’ educational attainment.
Part 2 is extracted from the survey questionnaire entitled HEXACO-PI-R adopted
from Ashton & Lee, 2009 as it is considered appropriate to the research problem posted
in chapter 1 of the study. It is composed of 20 item questions regarding to the honesty of
a person and each questions are introduced to the respondents to be rate according on
how it is applied to theme and they have 4 (four) choices to respond with a scale,
specifically; 4 - Mostly true about me, 3 - Somewhat true about me, 2 - A little true about
me and 1 - Not true about me. To describe the honesty of the respondents in more
systematic way, the following rating scale was employed:
Mean
Description
3. 50 – 4.00
Outstanding
2.01 – 3.49
Very Satisfactory
1.40 – 2.00
Satisfactory
1.00 - 1.39
Needs improvement
30
Part
3
is
extracted
from
the
Personal
Self-discipline
Survey
(www.learningtogive.org) that is considered appropriate and applicable to the study in
order to answer the research problems presented in the chapter 1 of the study. It is
composed of 20 questions to measure the self-discipline of the respondents by rating the
scale presented in the questionnaire. The questionnaire have 5 (five) choices to respond
with a scale, specifically; 5 – strongly agree, 4 – agree, 3 – not sure, 2 – disagree and 1 –
strongly disagree. To describe the self-discipline of the respondents in more systematic
way, the following rating scale was employed:
Mean
Description
4.20 – 5.00
Excellent
3. 40 – 4.19
Good
2.60 – 3.39
Average
1.80 – 2.59
Fair
1.00 - 1.79
Poor
31
Data Gathering Technique
The data needed for the actualization of this study are gathered from the students
who are enrolled in different colleges inside Central Luzon State University such as
College of Education (CEd), College of Engineering (CEn), College of Veterinary
Science and Medicine (CVSM), College of Home Science and Industry (CHSI), College
of Business Administration and Accountancy (CBAA), College of Arts and Sciences
(CAS), College of Agriculture (CAg) and College of Fisheries (CF).
Before conducting the survey the researchers adopted questions from Ashton &
Lee, 2009 questionnaire entitled HEXACO-PI-R and Personal Self-discipline Survey
(www.learningtogive.org). On the day of data gathering, the respondents will be orient by
the researcher on how to answer the questionnaire correctly in order to get accurate
information. The survey questionnaire is given based on the time where the respondents
are free and convenient to answer to avoid inconvenience to the respondents.
Statistical Treatment of data
The following statistical methods are used in this study in order to obtain data that
will be classified and tallied by the researchers.
1.
For the Socio Demographic Characteristics such as sex, age, college, income
of their parents, parents work and their parents’ educational attainment and the
level of honesty of the students at CLSU, frequency count, mean and standard
deviation (SD) are used.
2. To test the relationship between Socio-Demographic and Moral Character,
Pearson Correlation is used.
32
3. To identify the difference between the college (course) in Central Luzon State
University and Honesty as well as Self-Discipline, T-Test is used.
All the methods mention in this study are done through the Statistical Package for
Social Sciences (SPSS).
33
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND DISTRIBUTION OF DATA
This chapter presents the analysis and the interpretation of data related to the level
of honesty and self-discipline among Central Luzon State University students.
Socio Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents
Table 2 presents the socio demographic characteristics of respondents.
Table 2 Socio Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents
VARIABLES
Frequency
N=160
Percentage
%
17-19 years old
97
60.6
20 years old and above
63
39.4
Male
65
40.6
Female
95
59.4
Businessman
32
20.0
Government Employee
30
18.8
Farmer
71
44.4
Others
27
16.9
AGE
Mean: 1.39
Standard Deviation: 0.49
SEX
WORK OF FATHER
34
Table 2 continued…
VARIABLES
Frequency
N=160
Percentage
%
Businesswoman
36
22.5
Government Employee
32
20.0
Farmer
33
20.6
Others
59
36.9
Undergraduate
115
71.9
Graduate
45
28.1
Undergraduate
94
58.8
Graduate
66
41.2
Php 5,000 and below
44
27.5
Php 6,000-15,000
52
32.5
Php 16,000-30,000
28
17.5
Php 31,000-50,000
22
13.8
Php 51,000-75,000
6
3.8
Php 76,000-100,000
4
2.5
Php 100,000 and above
4
2.5
WORK OF MOTHER
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT OF FATHER
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT OF MOTHER
MONTHLY INCOME
Age
As shown in table 2, the overall mean age is 1.39 and the age range was from 17
to 21. The students were mostly 17-19 years old (39.4%) followed by age of 20 years old
and above with 63 (39.4%) of respondents. This means majority of the respondents are
teenagers.
35
The age of the respondents (17-19 years old) is known as part of the teenager
stage that is a crucial stage and it is challenging for them (teenagers) to develop their selfdiscipline as they have the urge to be not treated like a child anymore (Pickhardt, 2010)
so they are more likely to tell lies (Buchanan, 2015).
Sex
Majority of the respondents are female with 95 (59.4%) and 65(40.6%) of the
respondents are male. This implies that teenager female students are numerous and are
the most affected with this study.
In survey conducted by Rosenbaum et al. (2014) it emphasize that honesty is not a
fixed trait as most of the studies report that women cheat less than men. Although, the
literature predominately finds that men cheat significantly more but some studies find no
gender differences (e.g., Childs, 2012; Djawadi and Fahr, 2015).
Parent’s Work
In terms of the work of parents, the data above shows that farmer with 71 (44.4%)
respondents is the work of their father while their mother is likely to be a private
employee, self-employed, housewife etc. (59; 36.9%).
Parents Educational Attainment and Income
The data shows that majority of parents both father (115; 71.9%) and mother (94;
58.8%) are undergraduate followed by 45 respondents with graduate parents (28.1%).
36
Their monthly income ranges from 6,000 -15,000 pesos only (52; 32%) although some of
them have 76,000-100,000 pesos and above (2.5%) as their monthly income.
Thus, parents may affect the behavior of their children by means of
transmission and environment. Children brought up in less favorable conditions obtain
less education but much more of attaining good behavior as their parents teaches them to
good and thankful to the things they have now as they will be able to get what they want
when they are determined and exerts much effort to achieve their goal (Heckman and
Masterov,2005). Hence, there is a large connection between educational attainment of
parents, income as well as the honesty and self-discipline of the child (Salvanes, 2011).
Table 3 presents the mean scores and description of honesty
Table 3 Honesty-Mean Scores and Description
Statement
1. I explain to my parents why I need that money
Mean
Description
3.58
Outstanding
3.51
Outstanding
3.24
Very Satisfactory
1.46
Satisfactory
everytime that I ask them for money.
2. I tell my parents the real price of the things that I need to
pay as they are the ones who gave me money.
3. I refrain myself from taking things that does not belong
to me.
4. If I knew that I could never get caught, I might be
willing to steal.
5.
Having a lot of money is not especially important to me
2.60
Very Satisfactory
6.
I would be tempted to buy stolen property if I were
1.43
Satisfactory
2.56
Very Satisfactory
3.50
Outstanding
financially tight
7.
I would never accept a bribe such as money, even if it
were very large
8.
I return the things that is not mine in the first place
37
Table 3 continued…
Statement
Mean
Description
9. I did cheat on quizzes and exams
2.43
Very Satisfactory
10. I tell lies when I know I will be saved by it
2.31
Very Satisfactory
11. I allowed someone to copy and cheat on my exam
2.40
Very Satisfactory
2.57
Very Satisfactory
1.53
Satisfactory
14. I will tell to my teacher if I saw someone stealing
2.84
Very Satisfactory
15. I steal something if I really like it
1.30
Needs
because I know they will fail If I don’t let them to copy
from me
12. When I see someone cheating, I just ignore it because it
is not my business anymore
13. I lie so that I will fit in to the group of people because I
want their company
Improvement
16. I will be tempted to steal from a store when I really want
1.24
it but I don’t have enough money to buy it
17. I copy some of my classmates assignments because I
Needs
Improvement
2.39
Very Satisfactory
3.74
Outstanding
2.83
Very Satisfactory
1.91
Satisfactory
2.47
Very Satisfactory
forgot to do my assignments
18. I keep the secrets of my friends and family because I
know that it is their privacy
19. I wouldn’t pretend to like someone just to get favor from
that person
20. If I want something from someone, I would laugh at that
person’s corny jokes
Average Mean
Legend:
3. 50 – 4.00
2.01 – 3.49
1.40 – 2.00
1.00 - 1.39
Outstanding
Very Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Needs improvement
38
As shown in the data on table 3, the respondents have an outstanding level
of honesty towards their family and friends as they are able to keep the secrets that was
shared unto them as it is for the privacy (M=3.74). Findings shows that it is supported by
the recent study of Cannors (2016) the opposite of honesty is deception or lying and it is
equally bad whether you are deceiving others or yourself because when you lie, you will
confuse yourself, confuse others, lose credibility and put yourself in harm and it is
supported by Silva (2017) as dishonesty will hurt the feelings of other people and
deteriorate trust of others.
On the other hand, the respondents need to improve their honesty towards
themselves wherein asking themselves and thinking if they need that thing or they just
want it and what will be the consequence of the action being done to avoid wrongdoings
such as stealing (M=1.30). As pointed out by Ten Brinke & Porter (2012) honesty
contributes to realistic self-evaluation and reflection of possessors and recipients alike, an
ability which is crucial for growth and is a premise for modifying unhealthy thoughts and
behaviors that are a stumbling block to genuine happiness. Although the path of honesty
is hard according to Pandey (2017), it is a discipline that enriches a person with purity
whereas dishonesty is the outcome of polluted minds. So it is always better to choose
purity over pollution and making living worth.
In statement no. 9 and no.11, as an emphasize to the honesty of the students in
school, honesty of the respondents is very satisfactory as they admit with honesty that
cheating in exam and quizzes is common in the students (M=2.43) and they allowed
other students to copy from their exams and quizzes in order to pass because they know
that if they don’t let others to copy them, they will fail (M=2.40). In study of Holleque
39
(1982) Academic Dishonesty among college students is a perplexing phenomenon and its
occurrence has been documented and publicized. College and university administrators
admit that academic dishonesty is a problem on campus which means they often lack
effective policies and procedures to deal with it.
Thus, based on the data gathered, the level of honesty among Central Luzon State
University students is very satisfactory with an average mean of 2.47.
Table 4 presents the mean scores and description of self-discipline
Table 4 Self-Discipline-Mean Scores and Description
Statement
1. I keep promises I make to others.
Mean
4.24
Description
Excellent
2. My room is organized enough for me to find what I need.
3.84
Good
3. I complete school assignments on time.
3.61
Good
4. I am able to keep a secret when asked to do so.
4.51
Excellent
5. I decide what I want to spend my money on and am able to
4.89
Excellent
6. I do not break school rules.
3.77
Good
7. People can depend on me to do what I say I will do.
3.63
Good
8. I enjoy being recognized for my accomplishments and
3.99
Good
9. I eat healthy foods and get regular exercise.
3.39
Average
10. I keep the promises I make to myself.
4.03
Good
11. I could give up my cell phone, videos games, junk food,
3.13
Average
12. I set expectations for my day and can stick to them.
3.51
Good
13. It’s difficult for me to let others do things for me when I
4.04
Good
14. I do not cheat, even when the opportunity presents itself.
3.53
Good
15. I look for opportunities to help others
4.05
Good
save toward that goal.
good deeds
and/or T.V. for a week.
know that I can do it myself
40
16. I can start a challenging task and am able to stay focused
4.03
Good
Mean
3.45
Dsescription
Good
4.03
Good
3.81
Good
3.80
Good
on it until the task is completed.
Table 4 continued…
Statement
17. I punish myself when I do something wrong
18. When someone corrects the mistakes that I made, I do not
feel embarrassed at all
19. When I see someone doing wrong, I feel the urge to
confront them
Average Mean
Legend:
4.20 – 5.00
3. 40 – 4.19
2.60 – 3.39
1.80 – 2.59
1.00 - 1.79
Excellent
Good
Average
Fair
Poor
From the table it will be seen that the respondents have an excellent selfdiscipline in terms handling money matters as they are able to save money to achieve
their goal (M=4.89). As emphasized by Sasson (2016)
“Self-discipline appears in various forms, such as perseverance, restraint,
endurance, thinking before acting, finishing what you start doing, and as the
ability to carry out one’s decisions and plans, in spite of inconvenience,
hardships or obstacles. Self-discipline also means a self-control, the ability to
avoid unhealthy excess of anything that could lead to negative consequences”
It means that self-discipline facilitates success, better achievements and reaching
the goals (de Ridder et.al, 2012) which improves the mood and makes people happier and
gladder (Hofmann et.al, 2013).
The respondents have an average self-discipline by being able to give up their cell
phone, videos games, junk food, and/or T.V. for a week especially when it is exam week
(M=3.13) which means self-regulation works closely together with self-discipline in terms
of studying that involves engaging oneself in school related activities such as reviewing
41
notes, going for extra coaching, doing assignments, studying and watching educative
programs instead of going for entertainment (Zimmerman and Ramdass, 2011).
It shows that students must learn how to set goals, how to choose the right
learning strategies, and the art of monitoring their performance. It also shows the need for
students to learn the habit of thinking about the learning outcomes over a long period of
time for them to become self-regulated. Hence, based on the data gathered, the level of selfdiscipline among the Central Luzon State University students is in good condition with an
average mean of 3.80.
Table 5 provides contextual overview for interpretation of correlation
Table 5 Verbal Interpretation of Values
Value of r
r=1
Verbal Interpretation
Perfect correlation
0.70 ≤ r < 1.0
High to very high relationship
0.40 ≤ r < 0.70
Substantial or marked relationship
0.20 ≤ r < 0.40
Relationship is present but very low or slight
0.0 ≤ r < 0.20
Negligible relationship
r=0
No relationship
Table 5 display the correlation values with a confidence interval p ≤ 0.05 and a
strong statistical significance at the p ≤ 0.01 level.
Table 6 presents the correlation between socio demographic characteristics of the
respondents and moral character
42
Table 6 Relationship between Socio Demographic Characteristics and Moral Character
1
1. Age
2. Sex
3. Majorship
4. Fathers
Work
5. Mothers
Work
6. Fathers
Education
7. Mothers
Education
8. Monthly
Income
9. Honesty
10. SelfDiscipline
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
1
160
-.068
.396
160
.031
.700
160
.134
.091
160
.127
.109
160
-.020
.797
160
.052
.511
160
-.064
.419
160
-.014
.864
160
.079
.319
160
2
-.068
.396
160
1
160
-.047
.553
160
.054
.496
160
-.094
.236
160
-.093
.243
160
-.021
.792
160
-.082
.304
160
.049
.541
160
.148
.061
160
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
3
.031
.700
160
-.047
.553
160
1
160
.213**
.007
160
.126
.112
160
-.082
.303
160
-.194*
.014
160
-.373**
.000
160
.040
.615
160
.019
.815
160
4
.134
.091
160
.054
.496
160
.213**
.007
160
1
160
.092
.248
160
-.185*
.019
160
-.261**
.001
160
-.417**
.000
160
-.107
.179
160
.050
.533
160
5
.127
.109
160
-.094
.236
160
.126
.112
160
.092
.248
160
1
160
-.063
.429
160
-.295**
.000
160
-.260**
.001
160
.104
.192
160
.181*
.022
160
6
-.020
.797
160
-.093
.243
160
-.082
.303
160
-.185*
.019
160
-.063
.429
160
1
160
.323**
.000
160
.278**
.000
160
-.043
.587
160
.041
.611
160
7
.052
.511
160
-.021
.792
160
-.194*
.014
160
-.261**
.001
160
-.295**
.000
160
.323**
.000
160
1
160
.492**
.000
160
-.209**
.008
160
-.153
.053
160
8
-.064
.419
160
-.082
.304
160
-.373**
.000
160
-.417**
.000
160
-.260**
.001
160
.278**
.000
160
.492**
.000
160
1
160
-.093
.240
160
-.186*
.019
160
9
-.014
.864
160
.049
.541
160
.040
.615
160
-.107
.179
160
.104
.192
160
-.043
.587
160
-.209**
.008
160
-.093
.240
160
1
160
.079
.319
160
10
.079
.319
160
.148
.061
160
.019
.815
160
.050
.533
160
.181*
.022
160
.041
.611
160
-.153
.053
160
-.186*
.019
160
.079
.319
160
1
160
43
Table 6 shows that the educational attainment of mother and the honesty of her
child student in Central Luzon State University is negatively correlated (r = -.209). It
shows that the lower the educational attainment of a mother the higher level of honesty
the student has. This denotes that mother has an important role in teaching honesty to her
child, one favorable reason is she’s the one who take care of her child most of the time.
Most of the respondents, their mother was undergraduate, the child is in
unfavorable situation because their parents especially their mother is uneducated and
obtain less education but the child attain much more of good behavior as their parents
teaches them to good and thankful to the things they have (Heckman and Masterov,
2005). Parents had the important role, especially the mother, even they were undergrad or
not, they were responsible to disciplined and taught their child. Disciplining and teaching
honesty did not require an educational attainment of the parent but this a part of being a
good person.
The self-discipline among the students of Central Luzon State university is
positively correlated with the work of their mother (r = .181) but negatively correlated
with family monthly income (r = .186). This means that as the mother has a greater work
and the lower their family income, the higher self-discipline a student has. Other findings
indicate that mothers tend to discipline their child more because they care about their
social relationship with their child. That is why mothers are more likely to take
misbehaviors personally because they are primed to react more emotionally, however the
impact of father and mother matter much more (Vinopal, 2018). Monthly income of a
parents does not have a great impact towards the self-discipline of their child but merely
44
a tip so that the child knows how to budget the small amount of money that he/ she has.
That is why Sacit (2000) suggest a budgeting tip to the students whose parent income is
not enough. This tip is to save money and buy only the needed things to avoid doing
unethical things such as stealing, telling lies, and cheating.
Table 7 presents the compared correlation of socio demographic characteristics
and moral character in terms of age
45
Table 7 Compared correlation of socio demographic characteristics and moral character in terms of age
Age
1
2
3
4
5
**
Pearson Correlation
1
.013
-.145 -.279
-.398**
1. Fathers
Sig. (2-tailed)
.898
.157
.006
.000
Work
97
97
97
97
97
N
.013
1
-.053 -.281**
-.222*
Pearson Correlation
2. Mothers
.898
.607
.005
.029
Sig. (2-tailed)
Work
N
97
97
97
97
97
**
-.145
-.053
1
.281
.297**
Pearson Correlation
3. Fathers
.157
.607
.005
.003
Sig. (2-tailed)
Education
97
97
97
97
97
N
**
**
**
Pearson Correlation
-.279
-.281
.281
1
.545**
4. Mothers
.006
.005
.005
.000
Sig. (2-tailed)
17-19 years old
Education
97
97
97
97
97
N
**
*
**
**
-.398
-.222
.297
.545
1
Pearson Correlation
5. Monthly
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
.029
.003
.000
Income
97
97
97
97
97
N
-.078
.055
-.039
-.112
.079
Pearson Correlation
.445
.595
.706
.275
.440
6. Honesty
Sig. (2-tailed)
7. SelfDiscipline
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
97
.058
.574
97
97
.165
.106
97
97
-.049
.634
97
97
-.121
.239
97
97
-.253*
.012
97
6
.058
.574
97
.165
.106
97
-.049
.634
97
-.121
.239
97
.079
.440
97
1
97
.111
.279
97
7
-.078
.445
97
.055
.595
97
-.039
.706
97
-.112
.275
97
-.253*
.012
97
.111
.279
97
1
97
46
Table 7 continued…
1
Age
1. Fathers
Work
2. Mothers
Work
3. Fathers
Education
20 years old and
above
4. Mothers
Education
5. Monthly
Income
6. Honesty
7. SelfDiscipline
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
2
1
63
.176
.167
63
-.245
.053
63
-.258*
.041
63
-.438**
.000
63
-.139
.276
63
.025
.846
63
.176
.167
63
1
63
-.074
.564
63
-.342**
.006
63
-.310*
.013
63
.166
.194
63
.193
.129
63
3
-.245
.053
63
-.074
.564
63
1
63
.392**
.001
63
.243
.055
63
-.050
.695
63
.131
.305
63
4
-.258*
.041
63
-.342**
.006
63
.392**
.001
63
1
63
.419**
.001
63
-.315*
.012
63
-.202
.113
63
5
-.438**
.000
63
-.310*
.013
63
.243
.055
63
.419**
.001
63
1
63
-.298*
.018
63
-.126
.325
63
6
.025
.846
63
.193
.129
63
.131
.305
63
-.202
.113
63
-.126
.325
63
1
63
.062
.629
63
7
-.139
.276
63
.166
.194
63
-.050
.695
63
-.315*
.012
63
-.298*
.018
63
.062
.629
63
1
63
47
Table 7 shows that there is no significant relationship between honesty and socio
demographic characteristics of 17 to 19 years old students, while their self- discipline is
slightly related with only one sdc which is the monthly income of their parents (r = .253).
In comparison with the 20 years old students, their honesty is slightly related to the
educational attainment of their mother (r = .315) as well as to their parent’s monthly
income (r = .298) while their self-discipline is not related to any socio demographic
characteristics.
“If a child does grow up to be “good”. Then it is primarily attributed to
proper discipline, monitoring and teaching of values according to the mothers”
(De la Cruz et al., 2001)
In the literature, the perspective of child, mothers are indeed more nurturant than
fathers; mothers are also perceived to be more powerful and authoritarian as they are the
one who gives instructions and organize their child’s daily activities (Carunungan-Robles,
1896). In other study in a national survey conducted from 15 highly populated semi-urban
sites, mothers were reported managing the household finances but both mothers and
fathers joined in making decisions on the matters regarding to their child’s discipline,
education and finance (Licuanan et.al; 1981).
Teens are considered old enough to have a well establish sense of right and wrong
and they value honesty based on the survey of more than 23,000 high school students
around the country of US as conducted by Joseph Institute of Ethics in 2012, where in 95
percent of teens said that they believe “Lying is morally wrong” (Pellisier, 2016). In other
study majority of teens learned respect, courtesy, consideration, decency, propriety,
honesty and righteousness from a very young age and have enough self-discipline to
hold these values (Ode, 2000)
48
Table 8 presents the compared correlation of socio demographic
characteristics and moral character in terms of sex
49
Table 8 Compared correlation of socio demographic characteristics and moral character in terms of sex
Sex
1
Pearson Correlation
1
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
95
Pearson Correlation
.126
2. Mothers
Sig. (2-tailed)
.224
Work
N
95
Pearson Correlation
-.187
3. Fathers
Sig. (2-tailed)
.070
Education
N
95
Pearson Correlation
-.249*
4. Mothers
Female
Sig. (2-tailed)
.015
Education
N
95
Pearson Correlation
-.507**
5. Monthly
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
Income
N
95
Pearson Correlation
-.037
6. Honesty
Sig. (2-tailed)
.724
N
95
Pearson Correlation
-.043
7. SelfSig. (2-tailed)
.682
Discipline
N
95
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
1. Fathers
Work
2
.126
.224
95
1
95
.033
.752
95
-.228*
.027
95
-.199
.054
95
.095
.362
95
.048
.641
95
3
-.187
.070
95
.033
.752
95
1
95
.430**
.000
95
.236*
.021
95
-.208*
.043
95
-.211*
.040
95
4
-.249*
.015
95
-.228*
.027
95
.430**
.000
95
1
95
.363**
.000
95
-.302**
.003
95
-.177
.086
95
5
-.507**
.000
95
-.199
.054
95
.236*
.021
95
.363**
.000
95
1
95
-.171
.098
95
-.283**
.005
95
6
-.037
.724
95
.095
.362
95
-.208*
.043
95
-.302**
.003
95
-.171
.098
95
1
95
.133
.200
95
7
-.043
.682
95
.048
.641
95
-.211*
.040
95
-.177
.086
95
-.283**
.005
95
.133
.200
95
1
95
50
Table 8 continued…
Sex
1
1
Pearson Correlation
1. Fathers
Sig. (2-tailed)
Work
N
65
Pearson Correlation
.058
2. Mothers
Sig. (2-tailed)
.648
Work
N
65
Pearson Correlation
-.172
3. Fathers
Sig. (2-tailed)
.172
Education
N
65
Pearson Correlation
-.277*
4. Mothers
Male
Sig. (2-tailed)
.026
Education
N
65
Pearson Correlation
-.267*
5. Monthly
Sig. (2-tailed)
.031
Income
N
65
Pearson Correlation
-.244*
6. Honesty
Sig. (2-tailed)
.050
N
65
Pearson Correlation
.099
7. SelfSig. (2-tailed)
.434
Discipline
N
65
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
2
.058
.648
65
1
65
-.239
.055
65
-.402**
.001
65
-.383**
.002
65
.136
.279
65
.315*
.010
65
3
-.172
.172
65
-.239
.055
65
1
65
.149
.236
65
.336**
.006
65
.304*
.014
65
.245*
.049
65
4
-.277*
.026
65
-.402**
.001
65
.149
.236
65
1
65
.705**
.000
65
-.038
.761
65
-.160
.204
65
5
-.267*
.031
65
-.383**
.002
65
.336**
.006
65
.705**
.000
65
1
65
.074
.558
65
-.138
.272
65
6
-.244
.050
65
.136
.279
65
.304*
.014
65
-.038
.761
65
.074
.558
65
1
65
.047
.711
65
7
.099
.434
65
.315*
.010
65
.245*
.049
65
-.160
.204
65
-.138
.272
65
.047
.711
65
1
65
51
Table 8 shows that there is a negative correlation between honesty of female and
the educational attainment of their mother (r = .302) and father (r = .208) where in the
relationship is present but slightly related. It shows that the education of parents is
important in shaping the honesty of their child. This means that the lower educational
attainment of parents the higher level of honesty a female student has. In comparison, the
honesty of male is slightly negatively correlated with the educational attainment (r =
.304) and positively correlated with the work of their father (r = .244). This denotes that
the lower the educational attainment of father the higher the level of honesty a male
student has and the work of father self-discipline of male student gets in the same higher
level together.
The self-discipline of female is slightly negatively correlated with the monthly
income of their parents (r = .283) and educational attainment of father (r = .211). It shows
that the lower their family income of parents and the lower educational attainment of the
father, the greater self-discipline a female student has. In comparison with male, there is a
positive correlation between the self-discipline of male and the work of their mother (r =
.315) as well as the educational attainment of their father (r = .245) is present but has a
low relationship. This means that the level of self-discipline a male student is higher
when their mother has a good or no work at all and father has lower educational
attainment.
Table 9 presents the compared correlation between SDC and Moral
Character in terms of majorship or colleges of the respondents.
52
Table 9 Compared correlation of socio demographic characteristics and moral character in terms of majorship that shows relationship
Fathers
Mothers
Majorship
Fathers Work Mothers Work
Monthly
Educational
Educational
Income
Attainment
Attainment
Pearson Correlation
Honesty
CEd
Self-Discipline
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Honesty
Pearson Correlation
Self_Discipline
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Cen
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
.434
.056
.461*
.041
.119
.616
-.292
.212
-.338
.146
20
.052
20
.226
20
-.064
20
-.041
20
-.093
.828
.337
.790
.864
.697
20
-.101
20
.159
20
-.219
20
-.197
20
-.055
.671
.504
.353
.405
.816
20
-.035
20
.236
20
.304
20
-.249
20
-.223
.884
.316
.192
.291
.345
20
-.563**
20
-.207
20
.172
20
.024
20
.141
Honesty
Pearson Correlation
.010
.381
.467
.920
.554
Self_Discipline
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
20
.366
20
.083
20
-.168
20
-.130
20
-.618**
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
.112
.729
.478
.585
.004
20
-.605**
20
-.224
20
.169
20
.023
20
.140
CVSM
Honesty
Pearson Correlation
.005
.343
.476
.923
.557
Self_Discipline
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
20
.293
20
.325
20
-.010
20
-.196
20
-.350
Sig. (2-tailed)
.209
.162
.966
.408
.130
20
20
20
20
20
CHSI
N
53
Table 9 continued…
Honesty
Pearson Correlation
.496*
.485*
Fathers
Educational
Attainment
-.531*
.026
.030
.016
.313
.141
Self_Discipline
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
20
.132
20
.225
20
-.141
20
.010
20
-.144
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
.580
.340
.555
.967
.545
20
-.203
20
.011
20
.040
20
-.328
20
-.078
.390
.962
.867
.158
.743
20
-.113
20
.030
20
-.257
20
-.267
20
-.317
.634
.902
.273
.255
.173
20
-.248
20
-.013
20
.040
20
-.322
20
-.152
.292
.955
.866
.166
.523
20
-.243
20
.198
20
-.002
20
-.164
20
-.019
.303
.403
.992
.488
.935
20
-.088
20
.202
20
-.205
20
-.186
20
-.025
.713
.392
.387
.431
.918
20
-.066
20
.190
20
.279
20
-.378
20
-.275
.784
.422
.233
.100
.241
20
20
20
20
20
Majorship
CBAA
Fathers Work Mothers Work
Honesty
Pearson Correlation
Self_Discipline
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
CAS
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Honesty
Pearson Correlation
Self_Discipline
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Cag
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Honesty
Pearson Correlation
Self_Discipline
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
CF
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Mothers
Educational
Attainment
-.238
Monthly
Income
-.341
54
Table 9 shows that out of 8 majorship only 4 show significant relationship
between their socio demographic and moral character. The honesty of CHSI students is
negatively correlated with the work of their father (r =.605), followed by CVSM students
wherein their honesty is negatively correlated with the work of their father (r =.563),
followed by CBAA student honesty that is negatively correlated to the educational
attainment of their father (r =.531) but positively correlated with the work of both father
(r =496) and mother (r =.485) followed by CED students honesty that is positively
correlated to the work of their mother (r = .461). This implies that honesty is the moral
character that is most affected and related to the socio-demographic characteristics of the
students in CLSU.
“Today, more above-average students are cheating as pressure mounts to be accepted to
competitive colleges.” (Mitchell, 2015).
Central Luzon State University (CLSU) is one of the top universities in the
Philippines according to the 2020 Ranking Web or Webometrics, the largest academic
ranking of Higher Education Institutions. This denotes that CLSU is one among many
competitive colleges here in the Philippines and its important academic policy is honesty
and self-discipline as its main goal is “providing quality education which highlights the
following features…impacts on the empowerment of the people it serves; and contributes
towards sustainable development.” CLSU is also designated by the Commission on
higher Education (CHED), as a Center of Excellence (COE) in six (6) programs –
Agriculture, Agricultural Engineering, Biology, Fisheries Teacher Education and
Veterinary Medicine. Two (2) out of four (4) majorship in the CLSU shows in the COE
55
programs has the most honest students, these majorship are the College of Education
(CED) and the College of Veterinary Science and Medicine (CVSM).
Table 10 presents the difference between Honesty and Self-discipline
Table 10 Compared difference of Honesty and Self-discipline
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 0.05
t
df
Sig. (2Mean
95% Confidence Interval
tailed)
Difference
of the Difference
Lower
Honesty
Mean: 2.47
SD: .34
Self-Discipline
Mean: 3.76
SD: .67
Upper
89.421
159
.000
2.41688
2.3635
2.4703
70.221
159
.000
3.70685
3.6026
3.8111
Table 10 shows that there is a significant difference in the scores for honesty
(M=2.47, SD=0.34) and self-discipline (M=3.76, SD=0.67) conditions; p = 0.00. These
result suggest that honesty and self-discipline among the students in Central Luzon State
university is important and is in good status.
56
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This study looked into the Moral Character: An Analysis of Honesty and SelfDiscipline among Central Luzon State University Students.
This research used the descriptive design in which a body of data is analyzed and
interpreted by the researchers. This study described the situation or area of interest
factually and accurately in order to arrive at goal that is to analyze the level of honesty
and self-discipline among Central Luzon State University students.
The following statistical methods are used in this study in order to obtain data that
will be classified and tallied by the researchers.
4.
For the Socio Demographic Characteristics such as sex, age, college, income
of their parents, parents work and their parents’ educational attainment and the
level of honesty of the students at CLSU, frequency count, mean and standard
deviation (SD) are used.
5. To test the relationship between Socio-Demographic and Moral Character,
Pearson Correlation is used.
6. To identify the difference between the college (course) in Central Luzon State
University and Honesty as well as Self-Discipline, T-Test is used.
All the methods mention in this study are done through the Statistical Package for
Social Sciences (SPSS).
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
57
This study looked into the Moral Character: An Analysis of Honesty and SelfDiscipline among Central Luzon State University Students.
This research used the descriptive design in which a body of data is analyzed and
interpreted by the researchers. This study described the situation or area of interest
factually and accurately in order to arrive at goal that is to analyze the level of honesty
and self-discipline among Central Luzon State University students.
The following statistical methods are used in this study in order to obtain data that
will be classified and tallied by the researchers.
7.
For the Socio Demographic Characteristics such as sex, age, college, income
of their parents, parents work and their parents’ educational attainment and the
level of honesty of the students at CLSU, frequency count, mean and standard
deviation (SD) are used.
8. To test the relationship between Socio-Demographic and Moral Character,
Pearson Correlation is used.
9. To identify the difference between the college (course) in Central Luzon State
University and Honesty as well as Self-Discipline, T-Test is used.
All the methods mention in this study are done through the Statistical Package for
Social Sciences (SPSS).
Summary of Findings
58
Profile of the respondents
Age
The overall mean age is 1.39 and the age range was from 17 to 21. The students
were mostly 17-19 years old (39.4%) followed by age of 20 years old and above with 63
(39.4%) of respondents. This means majority of the respondents are teenagers.
Sex
Majority of the respondents are female with 95 (59.4%) and 65(40.6%) of the
respondents are male. This implies that teenager female students are numerous and are
the most affected with this study.
Parent’s Work
In terms of the work of parents, the data above shows that farmer with 71 (44.4%)
respondents is the work of their father while their mother is likely to be a private
employee, self-employed, housewife etc. (59; 36.9%).
Parents Educational Attainment and Income
The data shows that majority of parents both father (115; 71.9%) and mother (94;
58.8%) are undergraduate followed by 45 respondents with graduate parents (28.1%).
Their monthly income ranges from 6,000 -15,000 pesos only (52; 32%) although some of
them have 76,000-100,000 pesos and above (2.5%) as their monthly income.
59
Level of Honesty
As shown in the data on table 3, the respondents have an outstanding level of
honesty towards their family and friends as they are able to keep the secrets that was
shared unto them as it is for the privacy (M=3.74). On the other hand, the respondents
need to improve their honesty towards themselves wherein asking themselves and
thinking if they need that thing or they just want it and what will be the consequence of
the action being done to avoid wrongdoings such as stealing (M=1.30).
Thus, based on the data gathered, the level of honesty among Central Luzon State
University students is very satisfactory with an average mean of 2.47.
Level of Self-Discipline
Respondents have an excellent self-discipline in terms handling money matters as
they are able to save money to achieve their goal (M=4.89) and average self-discipline by
being able to give up their cell phone, videos games, junk food, and/or T.V. for a week
especially when it is exam week (M=3.13).
It shows that students must learn how to set goals, how to choose the right
learning strategies, and the art of monitoring their performance. It also shows the need for
students to learn the habit of thinking about the learning outcomes over a long period of
time for them to become self-regulated.
Hence, based on the data gathered, the level of self-discipline among the Central
Luzon State University students is in good condition with an average mean of 3.80.
60
Significant relationship between socio-demographic characteristics and moral
character of the respondents.
The educational attainment of mother and the honesty of her child student in
Central Luzon State University is negatively correlated (r = -.209). It shows that the
lower the educational attainment of a mother the higher level of honesty the student has.
This denotes that mother has an important role in teaching honesty to her child, one
favorable reason is she’s the one who take care of her child most of the time.
The self-discipline among the students of Central Luzon State university is
positively correlated with the work of their mother (r = .181) but negatively correlated
with family monthly income (r = .186). This means that as the mother has a greater work
and the lower their family income, the higher self-discipline a student has
There is no significant relationship between honesty and socio demographic
characteristics of 17 to 19 years old students, while their self- discipline is slightly related
with only one sdc which is the monthly income of their parents (r = .253). In comparison
with the 20 years old students, their honesty is slightly related to the educational
attainment of their mother (r = .315) as well as to their parent’s monthly income (r =
.298) while their self-discipline is not related to any socio demographic characteristics.
There is a negative correlation between honesty of female and the educational
attainment of their mother (r = .302) and father (r = .208) where in the relationship is
present but slightly related. It shows that the education of parents is important in shaping
the honesty of their child. This means that the lower educational attainment of parents the
higher level of honesty a female student has. In comparison, the honesty of male is
61
slightly negatively correlated with the educational attainment (r = .304) and positively
correlated with the work of their father (r = .244). This denotes that the lower the
educational attainment of father the higher the level of honesty a male student has and the
work of father self-discipline of male student gets in the same higher level together.
The self-discipline of female is slightly negatively correlated with the monthly
income of their parents (r = .283) and educational attainment of father (r = .211). It shows
that the lower their family income of parents and the lower educational attainment of the
father, the greater self-discipline a female student has. In comparison with male, there is a
positive correlation between the self-discipline of male and the work of their mother (r =
.315) as well as the educational attainment of their father (r = .245) is present but has a
low relationship. This means that the level of self-discipline a male student is higher
when their mother has a good or no work at all and father has lower educational
attainment.
Out of eight (8) majorship only four (4) show significant relationship between
their socio demographic and moral character. The honesty of CHSI students is negatively
correlated with the work of their father (r =.605), followed by CVSM students wherein
their honesty is negatively correlated with the work of their father (r =.563), followed by
CBAA student honesty that is negatively correlated to the educational attainment of their
father (r =.531) but positively correlated with the work of both father (r =496) and mother
(r =.485) followed by CED students honesty that is positively correlated to the work of
their mother (r = .461).
62
Significant difference between honesty and self-discipline among the respondents
There is a significant difference in the scores for honesty (M=2.47, SD=0.34) and
self-discipline (M=3.76, SD=0.67) conditions; p = 0.00. These result suggest that honesty
and self-discipline among the students in Central Luzon State university is important and
is in good status.
CONCLUSION
Based on the findings of the study, the following conclusions were drawn:
Majority of the student respondents of Central Luzon State University were on the
average, 17-19 years old and were predominantly female. Most of the srudent-respondent
parents were undergraduates and earning by means of farming and that’s why their
family monthly income was low.
The respondents have an outstanding level of honesty towards their family and
friends but they need to improve their honesty towards themselves. The honesty of the
students in school, honesty of the respondents is very satisfactory as they admit with
honesty that cheating in exam and quizzes is common in the students. Thus, based on the
data gathered, the level of honesty among Central Luzon State University students is very
satisfactory
The respondents have an excellent self-discipline in terms handling money
matters and average self-discipline by being able to give up their cell phone, videos games,
junk food, and/or T.V. for a week especially when it is exam week. Hence, based on the data
63
gathered, the level of self-discipline among the Central Luzon State University students is in good
condition
Out of 8 majorship only 4 show significant relationship between their socio
demographic and moral character. These majorship are College of Home Science and
Industry (CHSI), College of Engineering (CEn), College of Veterinary Science and
Medicine (CVSM), College of Business Administration and Accountancy (CBAA) and
College of Education (CEd). Thus, most of the students in different majorship, their
moral character was related to their socio demographic characteristics.
There is a significant difference in the scores for honesty and self-discipline
which suggest that honesty and self-discipline among the students in Central Luzon State
university is important and is in good status.
RECOMMENDATONS
Based on the results and conclusions of these study, the following
recommendations were made:
1. Parents need to be equipped on how to train their children on self-discipline. A
study should be conducted to determine whether there are specific effective ways
of training children on self-discipline.
2. This study showed negative correlation between educational attainment of mother
and the honesty of the student in CLSU. Further study should be conducted to
determine whether similar results will be obtained.
64
3. The next researcher should be able to find the cause why out of 8 majorship/
colleges only shows a correlation between moral character and socio demographic
characteristics of the students.
4. The result showed significant differences between honesty and self-discipline.
Further study should be conducted to determine whether similar results will be
obtained.
5. Further researches on moral character of the students such as honesty and selfdiscipline is recommended.
65
REFERENCES
Andreoni, J. and B.D. Bernheim (2007). Social Image and the 50-50 Norm: A Theoretical
and Experimental Analysis of Audience Effects. Working paper. UCLA
Department of Economics.
Angeletos, G.M., D. Laibson, J. Tobacman, A. Repetto and S. Weinberg (2001): The
Hyperbolic Consumption Model: Calibration, Simulation, and Empirical
Evaluation. Journal of Economic Perspectives 15(3): 47-68.
Archana. (2016). Jan Dhan Yojana Essay. White planet technologies pvt. Ltd.
Aristotle. (2004). The Nicomachean ethics. London, England: Penguin Classics.
Ashton M., Lee K. (2009). The HEXACO–60: A Short Measure of the Major
Dimensions of Personality: Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(4), 340–345,
2009 Copyright : Taylor & Francis Group, DOI: 10.1080/00223890902935878
Bentham, J. (2001). Selected writings on Utilitarianism. Herfordshire, England:
Wadsworth.
Berglas, S. (2002). The very real dangers of executive coaching. Harvard Business
Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/ 2002/06/the-very-real-dangers-ofexecutive-coaching
Bobko, P. (2001). Correlation and regression: Applications for industrial organizational
psychology and management (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Boddy, C. R. (2014). Corporate psychopaths, conflict, employee affective well-being and
counterproductive work behaviour. Journal of Business Ethics, 121, 107–121.
doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1688-0
Bok, S. (1999). Lying: Moral choice in public and private life. New York, NY: Random
House Inc.
Braginsky, D. B. (1970). Machiavellianism and manipulative interpersonal behavior in
children. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 6, 77-99.
doi:10.1016/0022-1031(70)90077
Brandts, J. and G. Charness (2003): Truth or Consequences: An Experiment.Management
Science 49: 116-130. Chadwick, R.A., G.
Bromgard, I. Bromgard, D. Trafimow (2006): An Index of Specific Behaviors in the
Moral Domain. Behavior Research Methods 38(4): 692697.
66
Capraco, V. (2016). Does the truth come naturally? Time pressure increases honesty in
one shot deception games. 4-5.
Christopher, J. C., & Hickinbottom, S. (2008). Positive psychology, ethnocentrism, and
the disguised ideology of individualism. Theory & Psychology, 18, 563–589.
doi:10.1177/0959354308093396
Connors, C. D. (2016). Honesty-How it Benefits You and Others. Mission.com, 50-61.
Cooper, T. L. (2012). The responsible administrator: An approach to ethics for the
administrative role. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley and Sons.Dunn. (2009). If
money doesn't make you happy then you probably aren't spending it right.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to
the educative process (Revised ed.). Boston: D. C. Heath.
Dobronte, A. (2013). The importance of socio-demographics in online surveys.
CheckMarket Blog.
Dueck, A., & Reimer, K. (2003). Retrieving the virtues in psychotherapy. American
Behavioral Scientist, 47, 427–441. doi:10. 1177/0002764203256948
Erat, S., and Gneezy, U. (2012): “White lies”. Management science, 58 (4), 723-733.
Fischbacher, U. (2007). z-tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments.
Experimental Economics 10(2), 171–178.
Fischbacher, U. and F. F¨ollmi-Heusi (2013). Lies in disguise an experimental study on
cheating. Journal of the European Economic Association 11(3), 525–547.
Friesen, L. and L. Gangadharan (2012). Individual level evidence of dishonesty and the
gender effect. Economics Letters 117(3), 624–626.
Gla¨tzle-Ru¨tzler, D. and P. Lergetporer (2015). Lying and age: An experimental study.
Journal of Economic Psychology 46, 12–25.
Houser, D., List, A., Piovesan M. et.al (2015). “On the Origins of Dishonesty: From
parents to children”,NBER Working Paper 20788
Holleque, K. L. (1982). Cheating behaviors of College Students.
Hugh-Jones, D. (2015, November 15). Honesty Varies Significant between Countries.
Jacobs, G. (2012). The power of money. Cadmus. Promoting Leasership in Thought that
Leads to Action, 68-71.
67
Konig, S. (2001). The evolution of money from commodity money-e-money. Unicert IV
Program.
Lawrence M. Hinman, Ethics: A Pluralistic Approach to Moral Theory, 2nd Edition
(New York: Harcourt Brace, 1998), 63. With additions.
Lickerman, A. (2014). Why be honest? Psychology Today, Happiness in this World.
Little, R. (2018). The Importance of School Project. Perimeter School.
Mankiw, N.G. (1999). Macroeconomics. New York, Worth Publishers
McCombes S. (2019). Descriptive Research. Scribbr.com
Meeker, M. (2018) The truth about lying. Focus on the family. ExplorerDrive Colorado
Mill, J. S. (1993). Utilitarianism, on liberty, considerations of representative government.
London, England: Everyman Publishing.
Mishkin, F.S. (1992). The Economics of Money, Banking, and Financial Markets. New
York, Harper Collins Publishers
Nina Mazar, O. A. (2008). The Dishonesty of Honest People:A Theory of Self-Concept
Maintenance. American Marketing Association ISSN: 0022-2437.
Niederle, M. (2014): “Gender,” NBER Working Paper No. 20788.
Pandey, A. (2017). The virtue of honesty. The Himalayan Times
Peatman (2005). Formula of Percentage and Weighted Mean. Mathalliance Assc.
Rettinger (2019). Students using tech to cheat on exams, but things fetting more advance.
Phys.org. Psychological Science.
Rose, Gallup A (2005) Powers of Freedom: Reframing political thought. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Sasson, R. (2001). Self-discipline, Benefits and Importance. SuccessConsciousness.com
Silva, L. (2017). The Real Benefits of Honesty in the Workplace. Influencive.
Stewart, D. W. (1984). Managing competing claims: An ethical framework for human
resource decision making. Public Administration Review, 44, 14-22.
68
doi:10.2307/975657
Svara, J. H. (2015). The ethics primer for public administrators in government and
nonprofit organizations. Burlington, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
Wertenbroch, D. &. (2012). Honesty and Money.
69
APPENDICES
A. SURVEY_QUESTIONNAIRE
The researchers, made this questionnaire to conduct a study entitled: MORAL CHARACTER:
AN ANALYSIS OF HONESTY AND SELF-DISCIPLINE AMONG CENTRAL LUZON STATE
UNIVERSITY STUDENTS. This study aims to know the answer to the following Q’s.
Part I: Socio-demographic Characteristics
Direction: Kindly fill out the information below about yourself with honesty.
Name (Optional):________________________________________
Sex: ___ M ____ F
Age: ___ 17-19 years old ___ 20 years old and above
Course/Major: ___________________________________________
Parents Work
Father
____
Businessman/ Businesswoman
____
Government Employee
____
Farmer
____
Others
Parents Educational Attainment
Father
____
Undergraduate
____
Graduate
Mother
____
____
____
____
Mother
____
____
Monthly Family Income
____
Php 5,000 and below
____
Php 6,000 – 15,000
____
Php 16,000 – 30,000
____
Php 31,000 – 50,000
____
Php 51,000 – 75,000
____
Php 76,000 – 100,000
____
Php 100, 000 above
Part II: Honesty
Instruction: It is composed of 20 item questions adapted from the HEXACO-PI-R (Ashton &
Lee, 2009) regarding to the honesty of a person and each questions are introduced to be rate
according on how it is applied to theme and they have 4 (four) choices to respond with a scale,
specifically; 4 - Mostly true about me, 3 - Somewhat true about me, 2 - A little true about me and
1 - Not true about me.
Statement
1. I explain to my parents why I need that money everytime that I
ask them for money.
2. I tell my parents the real price of the things that I need to pay as
they are the ones who gave me money.
4
3
2
1
70
3. I refrain myself from taking things that does not belong to me.
4. If I knew that I could never get caught, I might be willing to
steal.
5. Having a lot of money is not especially important to me
6. I would be tempted to buy stolen property if I were financially
tight
7. I would never accept a bribe such as money, even if it were very
large
8. I return the things that is not mine in the first place
9. I did cheat on quizzes and exams
10. I tell lies when I know I will be saved by it
11. I allowed someone to copy and cheat on my exam because I
know they will fail If I don’t let them to copy from me
12. When I see someone cheating, I just ignore it because it is not
my business anymore
13. I lie so that I will fit in to the group of people because I want
their company
14. I will tell to my teacher if I saw someone stealing
15. I steal something if I really like it
16. I will be tempted to steal from a store when I really want it but I
don’t have enough money to buy it
17. I copy some of my classmates assignments because I forgot to
do my assignments
18. I keep the secrets of my friends and family because I know that
it is their privacy
19. I wouldn’t pretend to like someone just to get favor from that
person
20. If I want something from someone, I would laugh at that
person’s corny jokes
Part III: Personal Self-Discipline Survey
Instruction: It is composed of 20 questions extracted from Personal Self-discipline Survey
(www.learningtogive.org) to measure the self-discipline by rating the scale presented in the
questionnaire. The questionnaire have 5 (five) choices to respond with a scale, specifically;
5 – strongly agree, 4 – agree, 3 – not sure, 2 – disagree and 1 – strongly disagree.
Statement
1. I keep promises I make to others.
2. My room is organized enough for me to find what I need.
3. I complete school assignments on time.
4. I am able to keep a secret when asked to do so.
5. I decide what I want to spend my money on and am able
to save toward that goal.
6. I do not break school rules.
7. People can depend on me to do what I say I will do.
8. I enjoy being recognized for my accomplishments and
5
4
3
2
1
71
good deeds
9. I eat healthy foods and get regular exercise.
10. I keep the promises I make to myself.
11. I could give up my cell phone, videos games, junk food,
and/or T.V. for a week.
12. I set a expectations for my day and can stick to them.
13. It’s difficult for me to let others do things for me when I
know that I can do it myself
14. I do not cheat, even when the opportunity presents itself.
15. I look for opportunities to help others
16. I can start a challenging task and am able to stay focused
on it until the task is completed.
17. I am able to be cool headed when someone or something
angers me
18. I punish myself when I do something wrong
19. When someone corrects the mistakes that I made, I do not
feel embarrassed at all
20. When I see someone doing wrong, I feel the urge to
confront them
Thank you!
72
A. DOCUMENTATION